Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Screeching Weasel

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:54Z

[edit] Screeching Weasel

Screeching Weasel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article contains no third-party sources. I requested on December 8 that reliable third-party sources be added, but none have been forthcoming, let alone multiple non-trivial sources. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability (music). Simply, as Wikipedia:Verifiability says, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This AfD is a notice and opportunity to add such sources; without which the article must be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 06:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP I hate to say it Centrx, but I happen to have three of their CD's bought from MEDIAPLAY back in 2002. Their song My Right was used in the DVD Slednecks 6 if that helps any.

They also published 8 Albums on the LOOKOUT! label, a major indy studio (which also publishes artists like Alkaline Trio, Green Day, Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, and Rancid).

Per WP:MUSIC 5 - Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

I believe Billboard Magazine is a Reliable Source on this so you can find that information here [1] for the band and here [2] to verify "the beat is on brat", "emo", "Teen Punks In Heat", "Kill the musicians", "How to Make Enemies & Irritate People", "Anthem for a New Tomorrow", "Wiggle", and "Boogada Boogadaboogada!" were published by LOOKOUT! Incidentally, "How to Make Enemies and Irritate People" was recorded with Green Day's Mike Dirnt sitting in on bass.

I found this[3] at MTV.com about the band. Rolling Stone magazine has a small listing for the band[4], as does VH1[5]. Amazon.com lists nearly all their albums.[6]

I think with this information, it passes WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Now while I support the idea of improving wikipedia, just a little effort to even verify your claims on WP:MUSIC here on wikipedia would have kept you from making this AFD, wasting our time in the process. A simple cleanup tag should have been used. With the effort you made in creating this AFD, the same could have been made doing the 4 minutes of websearch to find this information. Hell, looking on wikipedia, all you needed to do was look at their album list, note the lables, check the label's wikipedia article and notice that it was a notable indie lable with some very notable artists. I am a deletionist myself as you can see in my history of voting but sometimes people take things too far, often to prove a point. I like to assume good faith but It's hard to do when I see an AFD on a known artist.--Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 07:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I appologize. I read your OP again and saw you were being fair and were making this afd to get help cleaning up the article. Now I understand your reasoning, the problem is, AFD is not the place to 'force the issue'. anyway, with the given information I think this is pretty much a closed case--Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 07:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no way to distinguish between a random band article that is unverifiable and one that is merely uncited. The one person interested in this article (who has added unsourced potentially libellous information to it) did not come up with any sources. —Centrx→talk • 08:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That is actually only one source: an entry in the All Music Guide copied to Billboard, VH1, and presumably MTV. Even supposing that it be perfect reliable, it is not sufficient to support this article. There is no information at all on the Rolling Stones website, and Amazon and Billboard.com discographies have no information about the band, and albums for any band can be found there by the tens or hundreds of thousands. If I had spent the 4 minutes finding this, I would still have nominated it. When the Wikipedia article is 5 times longer than the whole body of independently published text in all the world on the subject, there is a problem. —Centrx→talk • 08:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Centrx's nom and subsequent well-reasoned argument. There is no demonstration of "multiple non-trivial reliable sources" covering the topic. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 09:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, the nomination is preposterous as this band meets WP:MUSIC, something which is easily verifiable. Whether the article contains unsourced information is not a case for AFD. See also Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. Punkmorten 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 19:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Higher on the chain than WP:MUSIC is WP:V which states that "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Centrx posted the request for sources on December the 8th, which has gone unanswered. In WP:DELETE, an article lacking sources is to be dealt with in the manner described in WP:V, and if that doesn't work, to come back to the deletion route. I believe that is what Centrx has done. Sancho McCann 19:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • From Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed, quote: "Can't verify information in article (...) If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted." Clearly, this refers to the unverifiable bits of information, not the whole article. Punkmorten 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong WTF Keep I never thought I'd see the day when Screeching Weasel was up for deletion. Notable band with a long history, lots of records, and tons of media attention. Want proof? Look no further than Google: mentioned in a number of books, such as Turn That Down!: A Hysterical History of Rock, Roll, Pop, Soul, International Who's Who in Popular Music, The New Rolling Stone Album Guide, Rock Music in American Popular Culture II, Milk It!: Collected Musings on the Alternative Explosion and the Music of the 90s, A History of Rock Music: 1951-2000, Sonic Cool: The Life & Death of Rock 'n' Roll, Punk e hardcore (in Spanish), Punk Rock: So What?, and others. Google News has 210 press articles on the band including Chicago Sun-Times, New York Times, and many others, using adjectives including "great", "influential", "legendary" and "iconic" to describe the band. There is no way any reasonable person can claim Screeching Weasel do not pass WP:MUSIC on a number of counts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rather obvious keep I think, as per Punkmorten. This band sucks, but they quite easily fulfill WP:MUSIC. Ford MF 17:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Usually the thing to do when an article lacks sources is to go and get them rather than put the article up for deletion. Bschott got some vital links to sources in just about the amount of time it would have taken to put the article up for deletion! Best use that energy for things like Bob Cranford. V-Man737 21:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Although somewhat weak on sources, this is a definite keep. The sources above in this AfD should be added to the article.--Nick Y. 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Obvious reasons that have been stated early as why this should not be deleted. I've added a few sources to things that wante citations and to some other facts that someone might question.68.114.92.56 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So why are the only references at the article now All Music Guide? —Centrx→talk • 22:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The ones I added just had the url between [] next to the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.114.92.56 (talk • contribs).
      • By the way it would be delightful if people added sources to the article, and not just mentioned them here. Punkmorten 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment I think some unnecessary incivility is being directed toward Centrx, he requested sources be added several weeks ago and none were forthcoming, but that doesn't mean the onus is on him to bring the article up to par. Perhaps an AfD was not the best way to go, but it got people's butts moving to improve the article.--Dmz5 05:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep This article is on my watchlist now, and I'll work on it after Christmas, but the holidays are a hard time to wiki, because of life getting in the way. Third party sources will be added soon.--Jude 14:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean Up I'm usually vote hard core delete, but if Jude and others are willing to put in some time cleaning it up, I think it's worthwhile. I also think someone might want to make sure there is no copyright violations in terms of the text just in case someone copy/pasted it from somewhere else. Davidpdx 08:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A notable and influential band. Meets WP:MUSIC, just need references that's all. Definitely not a case for deletion. - kollision 11:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.